logo

Judicial Conflict Resolution: Examining Hybrids of Non-adversarial Justice

Sector: Education • Location: Israel

Source: EU Funding & Tenders Portal

Project
Ended

In the past few decades, the role of judges has changed dramatically and its nature has remained largely unexplored. To date, most cases settle or reach plea-bargaining, and the greater part of judges’ time is spent on managing cases and encouraging parties to reach consensual solutions. Adjudication based on formal rules is a rare phenomenon which judges mostly avoid. The hypothesis underlying J

Project Information FAQ

Project Information

3 Q
The project “Judicial Conflict Resolution: Examining Hybrids of Non-adversarial Justice” is an infrastructure initiative in the Education sector, located in Israel. Taiyo aggregates data on it from EU Funding & Tenders Portal.

Want to explore the full details? View the full report

Participants

Sponsoring Agency

Obfuscated Data

Company

Obfuscated Data

Status

Original status

ended

Taiyo status

Obfuscated Data

Taiyo last update

00-00-0000

Available timestamps

00-00-0000

Available timestamp type

Obfuscated Data

Contact

Contact name

Obfuscated Data

Phone

0000000000

Email

ObfuscatedData@email.com

Address

Obfuscated Data, Obfuscated data, obfuscated data, Obfuscated data

Description

Description

In the past few decades, the role of judges has changed dramatically and its nature has remained largely unexplored. To date, most cases settle or reach plea-bargaining, and the greater part of judges’ time is spent on managing cases and encouraging parties to reach consensual solutions. Adjudication based on formal rules is a rare phenomenon which judges mostly avoid. The hypothesis underlying JCR is that the various Conflict Resolution methods which are used outside the courtroom, as alternatives to adjudication, could have a strong and positive influence, both theoretical and practical, on judicial activities inside the courts. Judicial activities may be conceptualised along the lines of generic modes of conflict resolution such as mediation and arbitration. Judicial conflict resolution activity is performed in the shadow of authority and in tension with it, and crosses the boundaries between criminal and civil conflicts. It can be evaluated, studied and improved through criteria which go beyond the prevalent search for efficiency in court administration. Empirically, JCR will study judicial activities in promoting settlements comparatively from a quantitative and qualitative perspective, by using statistical analysis, in-depth interviews, mapping and framing legal resources, court observations and narrative analysis. Theoretically, JCR will develop a conflict resolution jurisprudence, which prioritises consent over coercion as a leading value for the administration of justice. Prescriptively, JCR will promote a participatory endeavour to build training programs for judges that implement the research findings regarding the judicial role. Following such findings, JCR will also consider generating recommendations to change legal rules, codes of ethics, measures of evaluation, and policy framings. JCR will increase accountability and access to justice by introducing coherence into a mainstream activity of processing legal conflicts.

Original sub-sector

Obfuscated

Original Currency

USD

Original budget

000000000000000

Procurement method

Obfuscated Data

Budget

000000000000000

Location

Region

Obfuscated

Country

Obfuscated

State

Obfuscated Data

County

Obfuscated

Location

Obfuscated Data, Obfuscated data, obfuscated data, Obfuscated data

Source

Source reliability

High

Data quality score

100%

Source

Obfuscated Data

URL

obfuscated_data,obfuscateddata.com

More Details

Project Type

Obfuscated Data

Article Published Date

Obfuscated Data